Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules 8391 

parties in the proceeding, including cost 

and benefit analyses, will help the 

Commission identify and evaluate 

compliance costs and burdens for small 

entities. 

Steps Taken to Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities and Significant Alternatives 

Considered. The RFA requires an 

agency to describe any significant, 

specifically small business, alternatives 

that it has considered in reaching its 

proposed approach, which may include 

the following four alternatives (among 

others): ‘‘(1) the establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance and reporting requirements 

under the rule for such small entities; 

(3) the use of performance, rather than 

design, standards; and (4) an exemption 

from coverage of the rule, or any part 

thereof, for such small entities.’’ 

At this time, the Commission is not 

aware of any revisions or new 

requirements that, if adopted, would 

impose a significant economic impact or 

burdens on small entities. The NPRM 

invites comment on how to 

accommodate entities for which 

compliance with the proposed rules 

would pose an undue hardship. 

The Commission expects to more 

fully consider the economic impact and 

alternatives for small entities following 

the review of comments and costs and 

benefits analyses filed in response to the 

NPRM. The Commission’s evaluation of 

this information will shape the final 

alternatives it considers, the final 

conclusions it reaches, and any final 

actions it ultimately takes in this 

proceeding to minimize any significant 

economic impact that may occur on 

small entities. 

Federal Rules that May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed 

Rules. None. 

Paperwork Reduction Act. This 

document may contain proposed new 

and modified information collection 

requirements. The Commission, as part 

of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork burdens, invites the general 

public and the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) to comment on any 

information collection requirements 

contained in this document, as required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), 

we seek specific comment on how we 

might further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice). 

Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 303, 335(a), 632(b) 

of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 

303, 335(a), and 552(b) this Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking is adopted. It is 

further ordered that the Commission’s 

Office of the Secretary SHALL SEND a 

copy of this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, including the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–02097 Filed 2–6–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2021–0106; 

FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 245] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Finding for the Gray Wolf 

in the Northern Rocky Mountains and 

the Western United States 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notification of finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

finding on the gray wolf (Canis lupus) 

in the Northern Rocky Mountains 

(NRM) and in the Western United 

States. After a thorough review of the 

best available scientific and commercial 

data, we find that gray wolves within 

the NRM area do not, on their own, 

represent a valid listable entity; 

therefore, the NRM is not warranted for 

listing under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find 

that the gray wolf in the Western United 

States is a valid listable entity; however, 

the gray wolf in the Western United 

States does not meet the definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. Thus, we find that listing the 

gray wolf in the Western United States 

is not warranted at this time. 

DATES: The finding in this document 

was made on February 7, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: This finding and the 

supporting information that we 

developed for this finding, including the 

species status assessment (SSA) report 

and species assessment form, are 

available on the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–HQ–ES–2021–0106. Please submit 

any new information, materials, 

comments, or questions concerning this 

finding to the appropriate person, as 

specified under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marjorie Nelson, Acting Assistant 

Regional Director, Ecological Services 

Mountain-Prairie Region, 720–582– 

3524, marjorie_nelson@fws.gov. 

Individuals in the United States who are 

deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have 

a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Previous Federal Actions 

Gray wolves were originally listed as 

subspecies or as regional populations of 

subspecies in the lower 48 United States 

and Mexico. We detail these various 

original rulemakings in the November 3, 

2020, rule delisting the gray wolf 

throughout much of its range in the 

lower 48 States and Mexico (85 FR 

69778). 

In 1978, we published a rule 

reclassifying the gray wolf in Minnesota 

as a threatened species and gray wolves 

elsewhere in the lower 48 United States 

and Mexico as an endangered species. 

We later revised this listing by 

designating the population of gray 

wolves in the NRM, including Idaho, 

Montana, and Wyoming, the eastern 

one-third of Oregon and Washington, 

and a small portion of north-central 

Utah, as a Distinct Population Segment 

(DPS) and, following legal challenges 

and several rulemakings, ultimately 

delisting this population due to 

recovery (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009; 76 

FR 25590, May 5, 2011; 77 FR 55530, 

September 10, 2012; 82 FR 20284, May 

1, 2017). Since delisting, gray wolves in 

the NRM have been managed by the 

States and Tribes. 

On November 3, 2020, we published 

a final rule removing the Act’s 

protections for gray wolves everywhere 

they were listed in the lower 48 States 

and Mexico, not including the Mexican 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
8392 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

wolf subspecies (Canis lupus baileyi) 

(85 FR 69778). The rule took effect 

January 4, 2021. 

On June 1, 2021, we received a 

petition from the Center for Biological 

Diversity, the Humane Society of the 

United States, Humane Society 

Legislative Fund, and the Sierra Club 

requesting that the gray wolf in the 

NRM be emergency listed as a 

threatened species or an endangered 

species under the Act. The petition 

included, as an alternative option, a 

request that we list a Western DPS of 

gray wolf that would include all of 

California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, 

Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and 

Wyoming, and, if the Service chose to 

include them, Arizona and New Mexico, 

north of Interstate 40 (first petition). The 

Act does not provide a process to 

petition for emergency listing; therefore, 

we evaluated this petition under the 

normal process of determining if it 

presented substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

On July 29, 2021, we received a 

petition from Western Watersheds 

Project and 70 other organizations 

requesting that gray wolves in Idaho, 

Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Oregon, 

Washington, Colorado, California, 

Nevada, and northern Arizona be listed 

as an endangered species under the Act 

(second petition). On August 10, 2021, 

we received an addendum to the second 

petition, which provided minor 

clarifications and corrections to the 

original petition but did not change the 

scope of the petitioned entity. 

On September 17, 2021, we published 

a 90-day finding (86 FR 51857) 

concluding that both petitions 

contained substantial information 

indicating that the petitioned actions 

may be warranted, and we initiated a 

status review to determine whether the 

petitioned actions were warranted. 

On February 10, 2022, the gray wolf 

2020 final delisting rule was vacated 

and remanded by the U.S. District Court 

for the Northern District of California. 

(Defenders of Wildlife v. US Fish and 

Wildlife Service, No. 21–00344 (N.D. 

Cal.), WildEarth Guardians v. 

Bernhardt, No. 21–00349 (N.D. Cal.), 

NRDC v. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, No. 21–00561 (N.D. Cal.)). On 

November 3, 2023, we published a final 

rule to comply with the district court’s 

order (88 FR 75506). As a result, all gray 

wolves in the lower 48 States, outside 

of the NRM, are currently listed under 

the Act. The court’s decision was 

specific to the gray wolf and does not 

affect the separate endangered listing of 

the Mexican wolf subspecies. 

On March 1, 2022, we received a 

petition from the International Wildlife 

Coexistence Network and nine other 

organizations requesting that a DPS of 

the gray wolf in the NRM or in the 

Western United States be emergency 

listed under the Act. As stated 

previously, we evaluate petitions 

requesting emergency listing under our 

normal petition review process. 

However, because we were actively 

engaged in a status review of the entities 

for which the petitioners requested 

listing, we did not issue a 90-day 

finding; rather, we evaluated the 

information provided by the petitioners 

in the context of this status review. 

On August 9, 2022, petitioners (June 

1, 2021 petition) filed a lawsuit to 

compel us to complete a 12-month 

finding on their petition (Center for 

Biological Diversity et al. v. U.S. 

Department of the Interior et al. No. 22– 

00134 (D. MT). On March 31, 2023, the 

parties entered into a settlement 

agreement under which the Service 

agreed that, on or before February 2, 

2024, we would submit to the Federal 

Register a determination as to whether 

listing a Northern Rocky Mountains DPS 

or a Western United States DPS of the 

gray wolf as a threatened species or an 

endangered species is warranted, not 

warranted, or warranted but precluded 

by other pending proposals. 

Background 

Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we are required to 

make a finding, within 12 months after 

receiving any petition that we have 

determined contains substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted, as to whether the 

petitioned action is warranted, not 

warranted, or warranted but precluded 

by other pending proposals (known as a 

‘‘12-month finding’’). We must publish 

a notification of this 12-month finding 

in the Federal Register. 

Listable Entity Requirements 

Under the Act, the term ‘‘species’’ 

includes any subspecies of fish or 

wildlife or plants, and any distinct 

population segment of any vertebrate 

fish or wildlife which interbreeds when 

mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). To 

interpret and implement the distinct 

population segment (DPS) provisions of 

the Act, the Service and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration published in the 

Federal Register the Policy Regarding 

the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate 

Population Segments Under the 

Endangered Species Act on February 7, 

1996 (61 FR 4722) (DPS Policy). Under 

the DPS Policy, we consider three 

elements to determine whether to 

classify a population of a vertebrate 

species as a DPS: (1) the discreteness of 

the population segment in relation to 

the remainder of the species to which it 

belongs; (2) the significance of the 

population segment to the species to 

which it belongs; and (3) the population 

segment’s conservation status in relation 

to the Act’s standard for listing, 

delisting, or reclassification. Both 

discreteness and significance are used to 

determine whether the population 

segment constitutes a valid DPS. If it 

does, then the population segment’s 

conservation status is used to consider 

whether the DPS warrants listing. 

Summary of Biological Information 

Gray wolves are the largest wild 

members of the Canidae or dog family 

(Mech 1974, pp. 11–12). Gray wolves 

have a circumpolar range including 

North America, Europe, and Asia. In the 

Western United States, the gray wolf 

currently occurs in one interconnected 

metapopulation with packs distributed 

across California, Idaho, Montana, 

Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming, 

and, more recently, wolves have been 

documented in Colorado (Service 2023, 

pp. 13–16). 

Gray wolves are highly territorial, 

social animals and group hunters, 

normally living in packs with high 

reproductive capacity (Mech 1970, pp. 

38–43; Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 8; 

Paquet and Carbyn 2003, pp. 485–486; 

Stahler et al. 2020, p. 46). Gray wolves 

are habitat generalists, meaning they can 

thrive in a variety of habitats and 

consume a diversity of prey species 

(though wolves are primarily predators 

of medium and large mammals) (Mech 

and Boitani 2003, p. 163). In general, to 

maintain populations in the wild over 

time, wolves in the Western United 

States need well-connected and 

genetically diverse subpopulations that 

function as a metapopulation 

distributed across enough of their range 

to be able to withstand stochastic 

events, rebound after catastrophes (e.g., 

severe disease outbreaks), and adapt to 

changing environmental conditions 

(Service 2023, p. 29). 

Summary of Information Pertaining to 

the Five Factors 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and the implementing regulations at 

part 424 of title 50 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) 

set forth procedures for adding species 

to, removing species from, or 

reclassifying species on the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants (Lists). The Act defines 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules 8393 

‘‘species’’ as including any subspecies 

of fish or wildlife or plants, and any 

distinct population segment of any 

species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 

which interbreeds when mature (16 

U.S.C. 1532(16)). The Act defines an 

‘‘endangered species’’ as any species 

that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)), and a 

‘‘threatened species’’ as any species that 

is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). Under 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may 

be determined to be an endangered 

species or a threatened species because 

of any of the following five factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. 

We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in 

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

expected response by the species, and 

the effects of the threats—in light of 

those actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—on an 

individual, population, and species 

level. We evaluate each threat and its 

expected effects on the species, then 

analyze the cumulative effect of all of 

the threats on the species as a whole. 

We also consider the cumulative effect 

of the threats in light of those actions 

and conditions that will have positive 

effects on the species, such as any 

existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. The Secretary 

determines whether the species meets 

the Act’s definition of an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only 

after conducting this cumulative 

analysis and describing the expected 

effect on the species now and in the 

foreseeable future. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in 

the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Our implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

future on a case-by-case basis. The term 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far 

into the future as we can reasonably 

determine that both the future threats 

and the species’ responses to those 

threats are likely. In other words, the 

foreseeable future is the period of time 

in which we can make reliable 

predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not mean 

‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to provide 

a reasonable degree of confidence in the 

prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable 

if it is reasonable to depend on it when 

making decisions. 

It is not always possible or necessary 

to define the foreseeable future as a 

particular number of years. Analysis of 

the foreseeable future uses the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and should consider the timeframes 

applicable to the relevant threats and to 

the species’ likely responses to those 

threats in view of its life-history 

characteristics. Data that are typically 

relevant to assessing the species’ 

biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan, 

reproductive rates or productivity, 

certain behaviors, and other 

demographic factors. 

In conducting our evaluation of the 

five factors in section 4(a)(1) of the Act 

to determine whether the gray wolf in 

the Western United States meets the 

Act’s definition of an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or ‘‘threatened species,’’ we 

considered and thoroughly evaluated 

the best scientific and commercial 

information available regarding the past, 

present, and future stressors and threats. 

We reviewed the petitions, information 

available in our files, and other 

available published and unpublished 

information for the gray wolf in the 

Western United States. Our evaluation 

included information from recognized 

experts; Federal, State, and Tribal 

governments; academic institutions; 

foreign governments; private entities; 

and other members of the public. 

This document announces the notwarranted finding for the gray wolf in 

the NRM and the gray wolf in the 

Western United States, in accordance 

with the regulations at 50 CFR 

424.14(h)(2)(i). In this document, we 

have also elected to include a summary 

of the analysis on which this finding is 

based. We provide the full analysis, 

including our rationale and the data on 

which the finding is based, in the 

decisional file for the action in this 

document. The following is a 

description of the documents containing 

this full analysis: 

The species assessment form contains 

detailed biological information; a 

thorough analysis of the listing factors; 

an explanation of why we determined 

(1) the gray wolf in the NRM is not a 

valid listable entity and (2) the gray wolf 

in the Western United States is a valid 

listable entity, but this entity does not 

meet the Act’s definition of an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species’’; and a list of literature cited. To 

inform our status review, we completed 

an SSA Report for the gray wolf in the 

Western United States (Service 2023, 

entire). The SSA contains a thorough 

review of the taxonomy, life history, 

ecology, current condition, and 

projected future condition for the gray 

wolf in the Western United States. This 

supporting information can be found on 

the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–HQ–ES–2021–0106 (see 

ADDRESSES, above). 

Our analysis for this decision applied 

our current regulations, portions of 

which were last revised in 2019. Given 

that we proposed further revisions to 

these regulations on June 22, 2023 (88 

FR 40764), we have also analyzed 

whether the decision would be different 

if we were to apply those proposed 

revisions. We concluded that the 

decision would have been the same if 

we had applied the proposed 2023 

regulations. The analysis under both the 

regulations currently in effect and the 

regulations after incorporating the June 

22, 2023, proposed revisions are 

included in our decision file for this 

action. 

Gray Wolf in the NRM 

Summary of Finding 

After a thorough review of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

data, we determined that gray wolves 

within the boundaries of the NRM DPS 

described in our 2009 rule (i.e., Idaho, 

Montana, and Wyoming, the eastern 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
8394 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

one-third of Oregon and Washington, 

and a small portion of north-central 

Utah) no longer constitute a valid DPS. 

Gray wolves in the NRM are not 

markedly separated from other 

populations of the taxon outside of the 

NRM western boundary (i.e., the wolves 

in the eastern one-third of Oregon and 

Washington are not markedly separated 

from the wolves in California and the 

western two-thirds of Oregon and 

Washington) and, therefore, the NRM 

does not meet the ‘‘discreteness’’ 

element of the DPS Policy as a 

consequence of physical, physiological, 

ecological, or behavioral factors (61 FR 

4722, February 7, 1996). Thus, we find 

that gray wolves in the NRM area do 

not, on their own, represent a valid DPS 

and we do not consider the status of 

gray wolves in the NRM area as a 

separately listable entity. However, we 

considered the status of gray wolves in 

the NRM area in the context of our 

significant portion of the range analysis 

for the gray wolf in the Western United 

States (see below). A detailed discussion 

of the basis for this finding can be found 

in the species assessment form and 

other supporting documents (see 

ADDRESSES, above). 

Gray Wolf in the Western United States 

Summary of Finding 

Based on our review of the best 

available scientific data, we determined 

that the gray wolf in the Western United 

States is a DPS. We find that the gray 

wolf in the Western United States meets 

both possible discreteness criteria of our 

DPS Policy: (1) it is markedly separated, 

genetically and physically, from other 

populations of the taxon (i.e., wolves in 

the Great Lakes area and ‘‘coastal 

wolves’’); and (2) it is delimited by 

international governmental boundaries 

(the United States and Canada border) 

within which differences in control of 

exploitation and regulatory mechanisms 

exist that are significant in light of 

section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act (61 FR 

4722, February 7, 1996). We also find 

that the gray wolf in the Western United 

States meets the significance criteria of 

the DPS Policy because its loss would 

result in a significant gap in the range 

of the taxon because it would create a 

gap of more than 1,000 mi (1,600 km) 

between the Mexican wolf subspecies of 

gray wolf to the south of the Western 

United States wolf metapopulation and 

gray wolves in Canada to the north. 

Because the Western United States 

population of gray wolf is both discrete 

and significant, we determined that it is 

a valid DPS and considered its 

conservation status under the Act. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the gray wolf in the 

Western United States and evaluated the 

five listing factors, including any 

regulatory mechanisms and 

conservation measures addressing these 

threats. The primary stressors with the 

potential to affect the gray wolf’s 

biological status include human-caused 

mortality (Factor C), disease and 

parasites (Factor C), and inbreeding 

depression (Factor E) (Service 2023, pp. 

30–93). We also considered the 

potential effects of climate change 

(Factor E), diseases in prey species 

(Factor E), and other sources of habitat 

modification (Factor A) on gray wolves 

in the Western United States, but these 

stressors have not negatively influenced 

gray wolf viability, nor are they 

anticipated to do so in the foreseeable 

future (Service 2023, pp. 93–103). 

Our assessment of current condition 

indicates that habitat and prey for 

wolves are abundant and well 

distributed in the Western United 

States. This, in conjunction with the 

high reproductive potential of wolves 

and their innate behavior to disperse 

and locate social openings or vacant 

suitable habitats, has allowed wolf 

populations to withstand relatively high 

rates of human-caused mortality. Our 

analysis of the current condition of gray 

wolves in the Western United States 

demonstrates that, despite current levels 

of regulated harvest, lethal control, and 

episodic disease outbreaks, wolf 

abundance in the Western United States 

has generally continued to increase and 

occupied range has continued to expand 

since reintroduction in the 1990s, with 

the exception of 3 years during which 

wolf abundance in the Western 

metapopulation decreased slightly (i.e., 

a decrease of approximately 50 to 100 

wolves in 1 year). As of the end of 2022, 

States estimated that there were 2,797 

wolves distributed among at least 286 

packs in 7 States. This large population 

size and broad distribution contributes 

to the resiliency and redundancy of 

wolves in the Western United States. 

Moreover, wolves in the Western United 

States currently have high levels of 

genetic diversity and connectivity, 

further supporting the resiliency of 

wolves throughout the West. Finally, 

based on several metrics for assessing 

adaptive capacity, wolves in the 

Western United States currently retain 

the ability to adapt to changes in their 

environment (representation) (Service 

2023, pp. 104–134). 

We also evaluated the future 

condition of gray wolves in the Western 

United States under multiple different 

future scenarios that varied levels of 

harvest and disease. Our analysis 

indicates that wolves will avoid 

extirpation in the Western United States 

over the next 100 years. Even in the 

extremely unlikely scenarios in which 

harvest substantially increases and is 

maintained at high rates over time in 

Idaho and Montana, while population 

sizes decrease in these states, the overall 

population remains well above quasiextinction levels in the Western United 

States; the median projected population 

sizes for the entirety of Idaho, Montana, 

Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming (the 

five states we modeled) in 100 years 

ranged from 935 wolves (95% Credible 

Interval 739–1,091) for the most 

impactful combination of disease and 

harvest scenarios we analyzed to 2,161 

wolves (95% Credible Interval 1,684– 

2,586) for the least impactful 

combination of disease and harvest 

scenarios we analyzed. More generally, 

gray wolves in the Western 

metapopulation will retain the ability to 

withstand stochastic and catastrophic 

events in the future (resiliency and 

redundancy) despite the decrease in the 

number of wolves relative to current 

condition under our future scenarios. 

We also expect the population size to 

remain large enough, with sufficient 

connectivity and genetic diversity, to 

avoid consequential levels of inbreeding 

or inbreeding depression in the future. 

Given this maintained connectivity, 

combined with wolves’ adaptable lifehistory characteristics, we expect wolf 

populations in the Western United 

States will be able to maintain their 

evolutionary potential and adapt to 

future change (representation). The 

likelihood of additional wolves in 

California and Colorado (and possibly in 

Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah in the 

long term), the continued recolonization 

of Western Oregon and Washington, and 

the availability of suitable wolf habitat 

and prey further support the continued 

viability of the gray wolf in the Western 

United States under the existing 

management commitments, albeit at 

potentially reduced population sizes 

compared to current numbers (Service 

2023, pp. 135–188). 

According to our analysis of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

data, now and into the foreseeable 

future, wolves in the Western United 

States are projected to withstand 

environmental and demographic 

stochasticity, increased human-caused 

mortality, potential disease events, and 

changing environmental conditions. 

Given the natural resiliency of wolf 

populations (e.g., high fecundity, 

dispersal abilities), the conservation 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules 8395 

efforts and regulatory mechanisms in 

place reinforce that States within the 

Western U.S. metapopulation will 

continue to manage human-caused 

mortality such that this stressor does not 

compromise the current or future 

viability of the metapopulation. 

Specifically, now and into the 

foreseeable future, wolves are likely to 

retain a healthy level of abundance. 

Given the assumptions in our model 

(Service 2023a, pp. 181–186), our 

analysis of our model projections 

indicates that there is no risk of quasiextinction in the next 100 years under 

any of our future scenarios. More 

specifically, according to the population 

projections from our forecasting model 

(Service 2023, pp. 185–188), which 

incorporates Idaho, Montana, and 

Wyoming’s minimum management 

commitments since delisting (Service 

2023, pp. 163–164), we project there 

would be at least 739 wolves throughout 

Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, 

and Wyoming for the next 100 years 

(Service 2023, pp. 185–188) (according 

to the lower credible interval of the 

population projection from the most 

impactful combination of disease and 

harvest scenarios we analyzed, 

scenarios we find unlikely for the 

reasons explained in the SSA Report 

(Service 2023, pp. 172–177)). If states 

continue to harvest wolves at past 

observed rates of harvest (Harvest 

Scenario 1), which they have yet to 

significantly exceed despite 

implementing less-restrictive 

regulations and which are more 

consistent with new management 

objectives in Idaho (IDFG 2023b, pp. 

39–42), the projected population size 

would remain above approximately 

1,300 to 1,600 wolves for the next 100 

years, even with catastrophic levels of 

disease (Service 2023, pp. 185–188). 

Prey and habitat are not limiting and are 

not likely to become so. Wolves are also 

likely to retain their connectivity within 

the Western United States and to 

Canada, supporting healthy levels of 

genetic diversity. Wolves are also likely 

to be able to withstand catastrophic 

events (i.e., disease) now and into the 

foreseeable future, given their retention 

of a wide distribution, their high 

fecundity, and the fact that our models 

indicate the population would not crash 

due to catastrophic disease events. 

Finally, wolves currently have the 

ability to and will retain the ability to 

adapt to changes in their environment 

given their retained distribution across 

a diversity of ecoregions (even with 

projected future population declines in 

Idaho and Montana), their generalist life 

history, and their genetic diversity. 

Thus, after assessing the best available 

data, we conclude that the gray wolf in 

the Western United States is not in 

danger of extinction or likely to become 

so in the foreseeable future throughout 

all of its range. 

Having concluded that gray wolves in 

the Western United States are not in 

danger of extinction or likely to become 

so in the foreseeable future throughout 

their range, we also evaluated four 

different potential significant portions 

of the range: (1) Idaho; (2) Montana; (3) 

California, Western Oregon, and 

Western Washington; and (4) the NRM. 

We determined that, due to the current 

and projected demographic health of 

these portions and the existing 

regulatory mechanisms, none of these 

portions are in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future (i.e., none of these portions have 

a different status than the gray wolf 

throughout its entire range in the 

Western United States, now or into the 

foreseeable future). After assessing the 

best available data, we concluded that 

the gray wolf in the Western United 

States is not in danger of extinction, or 

likely to become in danger of extinction 

in the foreseeable future, throughout all 

of its range or in any significant portion 

of its range. Therefore, we find that 

listing the gray wolf in the Western 

United States as an endangered species 

or a threatened species under the Act is 

not warranted. A detailed discussion of 

the basis for this finding can be found 

in the species assessment form and 

other supporting documents (see 

ADDRESSES, above). 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our July 1, 1994, 

peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 

1994) and the Service’s August 22, 2016, 

Director’s Memo on the Peer Review 

Process, we solicited independent 

scientific reviews of the information 

contained in the SSA report for the gray 

wolf in the Western United States. On 

behalf of the Service, an outside 

contractor sent the SSA report to five 

independent peer reviewers and 

received five responses. Results of this 

structured peer review process can be 

found at https://www.regulations.gov. 

We incorporated the results of these 

reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA 

report, which is the scientific 

foundation for this finding. 

References Cited 

A list of the references cited in this 

petition finding is available in the 

species assessment form, which is 

available on the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–HQ–ES–2021–0106 (see 

ADDRESSES, above). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff members of the Species 

Assessment Team, Ecological Services 

Program. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is section 

4 of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 

Martha Williams, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–02419 Filed 2–6–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS